- Asmodean High Priest: has Human trait, definitely not human-looking (similar to the MM FAQ'd 'Widow and Dearly Departed'); also, looking so dope it should be illegal.
- also, when does AHP's first power come into effect?
"When you would recharge...spell...do X to put the spell in your hand instead".
Basically, you DON'T actually play AHP (so his first paragraph's not even a power?)- I seem to recall a discussion on a similar subject, but can't find the thread, and I don't remember how it was resolved.
- Petty Thief - checking for intent:
"If you fail THE CHECK to acquire, discard armor or item"
...-dissimilar to Burglar and similar, that penalize you for failing to *acquire* them. I.e., you can 'pass' on attempting to acquire the Petty Thief without penalty - which I'm definitely OK with.
- Tower Shield:
Power 1: "At the start of any turn, display this card. While displayed (damage dealt to you is reduced; difficulty of you checks to defeat is +1dX)"
...So, once I display TS it stays displayed until the end of the game ?!? Of course, there's TS's Power 2:
"At the end of any turn, you may recharge this card. If you do not, succeed at ...check or discard this card"
This *seems* to me like it's intended to work "while displayed", but since it doesn't say so - it's supposed to default to "must be played from your hand", right? Which would make this card very funky, indeed...
-BoMazmezz: "Discard this card to add...or 3 dice, if each character at your location discards 1d4 cards."
I wan't to confirm if -similar to the WotR FAQ'd Corruption Demon- I can roll d4 first and *then* decide if I want to discard that number of cards. Whatever the answer - WHY? Is there a rule I'm overlooking that would have spared me this question, and that is the basis for a default resolution (the Corruption Demon FAQ is not helpful in that regard), or are these clauses determined on case by case basis?
- BoBelial: "Discard to add 2 dice to ANY check to acquire a boon; if this card is Corrupted and YOU acquire the boon, discard the boon"
Soo, the Corrupted BoBelieal has no ill effect if I play it on *another* player's check, correct? Or is this one of those annoying "applies to everyone" YOU's, for some reason? (I'm not sure why I see it as a dissimilar case)
- Lazerro Diabolist: "When you defeat Demon, Devil, Fiend...you may display it. For each card displayed that way, damage dealt to you is reduced by 1 (2)"
... ... ... So, I display it for, like, FOREVER? Basically, I can become pretty much impervious to damage within a couple of turns in WotR? Don't mind if I do...
- Ugraz Tyrant: "When a character ... would banish or bury a card FROM HER HAND for its power..."
Ok, so I know that if I discard a spell, but then I lack, say, Arcane and I banish it - then I'm "banishing the spell for its power". However, would that count as "banishing from my hand"?? (since the spell was 'set aside' at the time it was banished)
Thanks in advance for the help!
- BoBelial: "Discard to add 2 dice to ANY check to acquire a boon; if this card is Corrupted and YOU acquire the boon, discard the boon"
Soo, the Corrupted BoBelieal has no ill effect if I play it on *another* player's check, correct? Or is this one of those annoying "applies to everyone" YOU's, for some reason? (I'm not sure why I see it as a dissimilar case)
Well I could see intent being either way on this one, but by default I would take the word "you" literally here. In the only case I know of where "you" can refer to other people it's because it's part of the name of something (specifically "before you act"). That step would be better called "before one acts" and there wouldn't be confusion, but that wording would be a bit archaic. In that case there was no good alternative, because the name of the step is the name of the step, whereas here they could easily have worded it without "you" if they had wanted to.
- Ugraz Tyrant: "When a character ... would banish or bury a card FROM HER HAND for its power..."
Ok, so I know that if I discard a spell, but then I lack, say, Arcane and I banish it - then I'm "banishing the spell for its power". However, would that count as "banishing from my hand"?? (since the spell was 'set aside' at the time it was banished)
"Set aside" isn't a place. The card is still being played from one's hand.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'll have to get back to you on most of these. Two are simple:
Asmodean High Priest should have the Half-Elf trait instead of the Human trait.
- BoBelial: "Discard to add 2 dice to ANY check to acquire a boon; if this card is Corrupted and YOU acquire the boon, discard the boon"
Soo, the Corrupted BoBelieal has no ill effect if I play it on *another* player's check, correct?
Correct.
Additional questions:
BoMazmezz has "after you play this card, if this card has the corrupted trait, bury this card instead of discarding it."
BoMammon has "Discard this card to add 2 dice to any check; after the check, if this card has the corrupted trait, a random character at your location is dealt Fire damage equal to the lowest die of the size you added."
None of the blessings are listed on the redemption card. Is this by design or by flaw? I.e. do I always have to deal with the corrupted text unless I use a 1x use such as recharging the corruptive full plate (armor 4)? Or am I still able to redeem these blessing cards permanently?
They cannot be redeemed permanently. Redeeming Mammon is outside the scope, it turns out.
That said, you can use any number of character powers (like the ones possessed by several of the HV1/2 characters) or boon powers to temporarily address the problem, if you choose.
In the end, arch-devils are nothing that can't be fixed by a bit of smiting by the good old redeemer blacksmith; he's actually the real mythic hero of the story, showing the goodness of the world to the evil demigods with the might of his righteous hammer of goodness.
In the end, arch-devils are nothing that can't be fixed by a bit of smiting by the good old redeemer blacksmith; he's actually the real mythic hero of the story, showing the goodness of the world to the evil demigods with the might of his righteous hammer of goodness.
Did anyone tell that to Noticula? I think she's going about it the hard way...